Orthodoxy West and Catholic East.

If the only way to make this happen is ASB then move it there.

Here is a challenge, how can we make the world looks like this in 1200? How can we make Western Europe, Northern Europe and Western North Africa Eastern Orthodox Christian? (Would be Western Orthodoxy ITTL I presume.) Make a plausible answer for that. How can we make The Byzantine Empire, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Mesopotamia Catholic? For an extra bit, there must be small random Jewish enclaves around Europe, Africa, and West Asia. Another small thing, Islam is butterflied, with a Jewish Mohammed. Take the challenge if you want.
 

Philip

Donor
Do you want them to swap theologies? That is ASB. Orthodox theology (especially Christology and ecclesiology) incorporate parts of Greek philosophy. It is hard to remove this from the Eastern Empire. Catholic theology (especially ecclesiology and polity) relies on papal authority and the primacy of Rome -- hard to move that to the east.
 
Well it's not TOTALLY ASB. If what you're going for is organization rather than theology....

Eastern "Catholicism" would certainly not resemble the Catholicism of OTL as it would be in short a centralized version of OTL's Eastern Orthodox Church centered around the Patriarch of Constantinople perhaps.

Western "Orthodoxy" could be created provided you weaken Rome considerably and long enough to cause other prominent Bishops to rise to the forefront, perhaps forming a loose "council".
 
Guys

A possibly alternative might be if the east is Catholic because the Papacy is dominant religiously but Italy and Rome is in the eastern empire? Say a more successful Justinian reconquest. However the western lands stay outside the empire and to avoid its domination, distance themselves from the Papacy, which is more tightly under imperial control. Would that give what you want?

Steve
 

Philip

Donor
A possibly alternative might be if the east is Catholic because the Papacy is dominant religiously but Italy and Rome is in the eastern empire? Say a more successful Justinian reconquest.

I don't think this is enough. By the time of Justinian there was already a widening gap between the theologies of the East and West. The filioque is just the tip of the iceberg. Having the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares will not make the East Catholic.

However the western lands stay outside the empire and to avoid its domination, distance themselves from the Papacy, which is more tightly under imperial control.

This will not make West Orthodox. By the time of Justinian, the theology of Gaul, Iberia and Britain was fully western and Latin. What you describe might create a schismatic Western Church, but it would not be Orthodox.
 
Well it's not TOTALLY ASB. If what you're going for is organization rather than theology....

Eastern "Catholicism" would certainly not resemble the Catholicism of OTL as it would be in short a centralized version of OTL's Eastern Orthodox Church centered around the Patriarch of Constantinople perhaps.

Western "Orthodoxy" could be created provided you weaken Rome considerably and long enough to cause other prominent Bishops to rise to the forefront, perhaps forming a loose "council".

I like it so far. What countries would be Orthodox and which would be Catholic? Also, with The Jewish Middle East bonus, what the Eurasian Religious Climate like?
 
The majority of Britain's theology wasn't primarily Latin at the time of the Justinian conquests - it was primarily Celtic which differed in several ways (eg the calculation of the date of Easter, the following of doctrines similar and derived from the teachings of Pelagius who was considered a heretic by Rome) from the Latin

The conversion of the Anglo-Saxons didn't start until around about 600AD, and that work was primarily under taken by Irish missionaries, not Latin ones. It wasn't until the Synod of Whitby in 664AD that Latin Christianity began to dominate, long after Justinian's death.

An interesting POD could be a different decision at Whitby, thereby allowing Celtic Christianity to continue to dominate (at least for the time being) Britain and Ireland
 

Skokie

Banned
The majority of Britain's theology wasn't primarily Latin at the time of the Justinian conquests - it was primarily Celtic which differed in several ways (eg the calculation of the date of Easter, the following of doctrines similar and derived from the teachings of Pelagius who was considered a heretic by Rome) from the Latin

The conversion of the Anglo-Saxons didn't start until around about 600AD, and that work was primarily under taken by Irish missionaries, not Latin ones. It wasn't until the Synod of Whitby in 664AD that Latin Christianity began to dominate, long after Justinian's death.

An interesting POD could be a different decision at Whitby, thereby allowing Celtic Christianity to continue to dominate (at least for the time being) Britain and Ireland

A good 98% of that is pure revisionism that reflects more the religious and political differences in Britain (with a dash of Romanticism and New Age) of a more recent vintage than the real history. "Celtic Christianity" was a mere local flavor of Catholicism or "Latin Christianity." It is certainly inappropriate to speak of a "Celtic" theology. Theology is not something that grows on trees. It's likewise inappropriate, though less so, to speak of a "Latin" theology as such at this point, since we're still in the Patristic Age.

More relevant to this discussion might be the various liturgical and jurisdictional controversies that raged at the time.
 
Top